Results 1 to 1 of 1
  1. #1

    Exclamation One of Many Examples of The Evil, Malicious Deception of Hajoori and his Fanatic, Irrational blind-foll​owers who falsely describe others with what they themselves are truly guilty

    Bismillaah Al-Hamdulillaah wa salatu wa salaamu 'ala rasulullaah

    Twitter Timeline 2: Al-Hajuri Ascribing Irjaa' to Qudamah Bin Madh'oon and the Activity of the Haddadi Hajurites
    Posted by Admin on Friday, 3-14-2014 and filed under Articles

    The History That We All Know
    It is established from history that the bid'ah of Irjaa' arose right towards the end of the first century hijrah, after the passing of the majority of the Companions (radiyallaahu anhum). Ibn Taymiyyah states that the first to speak with it was Hammaad bin Abi Sulaymaan (Majmu' al-Fatawa 7/311). And it is established that this innovation was a reaction to the bid'ah of the Kharijites, and in this saying, faith was reduced to just statement (qawl), that of the heart and tongue (and actions were expelled). Then came the more extreme Irjaa', which was that of the Jahmiyyah, who reduced faith to mere acquaintance in the heart (ma'rifah) and this was in the second century hijrah. Then in the third century hijrah came the Irjaa' of the Karraamiyyah who said faith is just outward speech. And finally there came the As'harites in the fourth century, who supported the saying of Jahm and stated that faith is only tasdeeq (belief in the heart). This is something established in history.

    Al-Hajuri Rewrites History
    Then al-Hajuri came along and changed this history and claimed that Irjaa' appeared amongst the Companions (radiyallaahu anhum) and claimed the companion Qudaamah bin Madh'oon initiated the bid'ah of al-Irjaa'. When al-Hajuri was pulled up on this issue, he tried to defend himself by throwing it all upon Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (through the route of Ibn Abi al-Izz). The Hajurites - without studying or investigating the matter - blindly followed al-Hajuri in his self-defence and made expressions such as the following (during their Twitter diatribes against the people of the Sunnah):

    [Hawaajirah Tweets Removed, due to exceeding the number of images this post allows, however Abu Iyaad mentioned them and refuted them]

    In the first tweet, the Hajurite acknowledges that this emanated from al-Hajuri (since al-Hajuri himself firmly acknowledged it and stated that he believed it). In the second tweet he attempts to bring two defences for Yahya al-Hajuri.
    The first is to say, "Well, did he actually say he (the Companion, Qudamah) was Murji?" as in, to say "Al-Hajuri never said he was Murji" trying to make light the fact that al-Hajuri said (by his own admission on a cassette) that Qudamah (radiyallaahu anhu) first spoke with the bid'ah of al-Irjaa. So the result is to say, since al-Hajuri only said the Companion spoke with the bid'ah of al-Irjaa, its not as bad as judging him and labelling him as a Murji. And the second is to say, "Hold on, was that from al-Hajuri from himself or was he actually reading from Ibn Abi al-Izz?" This requires some elaboration, and it is something that will uncover a great deal about the realities of the Hajurites. Before we continue, a quick point:

    The Hajurite above wrongly cited the name of the Scholar in question, he said, "Ibn Abdil Izz" when it is actually Ibn Abi al-Izz. Now this is deviation (Shirk) in Ruboobiyyah, Uloohiyyah and al-Asmaa wal-Sifaat, since izz (might, honour) is a meaning (sifat ul-ma'naa), and not a name of Allaah (His name is al-Azeez), and a person cannot be a slave to a meaning (ma'naa), thus you don't say Abd al-Quwwah, or Abd al-Rahmah, or Abd al-Hikmah and so on. We will excuse the Hajurite on this occasion and say this is just a slip and a mistake, perhaps in his haste to defend al-Hajuri he got confused between the name Ibn Abi al-Izz and al-Izz bin Abd al-Salaam (an Ash'ari Sufi) and somehow merged the two together to get Ibn Abdil Izz or whatever the case might be.

    Now, lets get on with the maqsood (objective):
    An Explanation of the Talbees of al-Hajuri, His Blind Taqleed of Ibn Abi al-Izz, and His False Accusation Against the Companion Qudaamah bin Madh'oon and His False Accusation Against Ibn Taymiyyah

    In the cassette Tabyeen al-Kadhib wal-Meen, al-Hajuri was responding to criticism directed at him for certain expressions, and from them, as it was stated to him in the question:
    كلامه في أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ، قال : ظاهرة الإرجاء كانت في أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وأن أول من قال بالإرجاء عثمان بن مظعون عندما شرب الخمر ، ونسب هذا القول إلى ابن تيمية ؟

    "His [al-Hajuri's] speech regarding the Companions of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam): That the emergence of Irjaa was amongst the Companions of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and that the first to speak of it was Uthmaan [Qudaamah is correct name] bin Madh'oon when he drank wine, and he ascribed this saying to Ibn Taymiyyah?
    Al-Hajuri in his response, ascribed this to Ibn Abi al-Izz and Ibn Taymiyyah, he said:
    أتينا بالمصادر التي قلنا منها ذلك اليوم هذا القول مذاكرة مع الإخوان عزواً إلى شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية وابن أبي العز ، ولو كان هذا الرجل عنده نصيحة لرد على من تقدم: غيري جنى وأنا المعاقب فيكم*** وكأنني سبابة المتندم

    "We brought the sources from which we spoke on that day with this speech, when revising with the brothers, referencing it to Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and to Ibn Abi al-Izz, and if this man had advice (to give) he would have refuted those who preceded (me in this): Others transgressed yet I am the one punished amongst you. As if I am the (index) finger of remorse.
    Then al-Hajuri said:
    فبعض الكلام الذي سيمر نعم قلناه ونعتقده ، لكن كما تقدم هذا حاصله ، وإليكم ما ينتقد هذا القول علي ، وإنما هو قول شيخ الإسلام بالنص ، وقول ابن أبي العز بالنص

    "Some of the speech that is to come, yes, we spoke with it and we believe it, however, as has preceded, this is what it amounts to, and here is that for which this statement (of mine) has been criticized, it is the saying of Shaykh al-Islaam textually, and it is the saying of Ibn Abi al-Izz textually.
    Then al-Hajuri said:
    ، قال ابن أبي العز رحمة الله عليه ص 324 طبعة بتحقيق الشيخ الألباني طبعة المكتب الإسلامي في الكلام على فقرة : (ولا نكفر أحداً من أهل القبلة بذنب ما لم يستحله) إلى هذه الفقرة وصل فقال : وأراد الشيخ رحمه الله بقوله : (ولا نقول لا يضر مع الإيمان ذنب لمن عمله) - مخالفةَ المرجئة . وشبهتهم كانت قد وقعت لبعض الأولين ، فاتفق الصحابة على قتلهم إن لم يتوبوا من ذلك فإن قدامة بن عبد الله (الصحيح بن مظعون كما في بعض المصادر) شرب الخمر بعد تحريمها هو وطائفة ، وتأولوا قوله تعالى : { لَيْسَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ جُنَاحٌ فِيمَا طَعِمُوا إِذَا مَا اتَّقَوْا وَآمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ } الآية . فلما ذكروا ذلك لعمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه اتفق هو وعلي بن أبي طالب وسائر الصحابة على أنهم إن اعترفوا بالتحريم جلدوا ، وإن أصروا على استحلالها قتلوا . وقال عمر لقدامة : أخطأت استك الحفرة ، أما إنك لو اتقيت وآمنت وعملت الصالحات لم تشرب الخمر.) وذكر الكلام إلى آخره في هذه الصفحة

    "Ibn Abi al-Izz said (may Allah's mercy be upon him) on page 324 with the tahqeeq of Shaykh al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah), the Maktabah Islamiyyah print, from his speech on the sentence, "We do not impute disbelief to any of the people of the qiblah on account of a sin (he committed) so long as he does not declare it lawful." And the Shaykh (meaning al-Tahaawi) - may Allah have mercy upon him - intended by his (other statement), "We do not say that sin does not harm in the presence of eemaan for the one who falls into it" to oppose the Murji'ah, and their doubt had occurred to some of the very first ones, and the Companions were united that if they did not repent from that they should be killed. For Qudaamah bin Abdullaah [meaning Qudaamah bin Madh'oon] drank wine after it became unlawful, he and a faction with him, and they interpreted the verse, "Those who believe and do righteous good deeds, there is no sin on them for what they ate (in the past), if they fear Allah (by keeping away from His forbidden things), and believe and do righteous good deeds...." (5:93) to the end of the verse....
    Until al-Hajuri said:
    وهو منقول من قول شيخ الإسلام ، مذكور في المجلد (11/403-404) وما بعدها من مجموع الفتاوى ، هذا قول شيخ الإسلام تبعه على ذلك

    "And this is quoted (by al-Tahawi) from Shaykh al-Islam, mentioned in volume 11 page 403 and what comes after in Majmu' al-Fatawa. This is the saying of Shaykh al-Islaam, he (Ibn Abi al-Izz) followed him in that.
    Notes and Comments on the Above

    1. Yahya al-Hajuri makes admission that he spoke with this saying (ascribing Irjaa to the Companions), and he emphasizes that he says it and that he believes it.
    2. He specified Qudaamah bin Madh'oon as the one who first spoke with al-Irjaa'.
    3. He stated that it is textually the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah, "it is the saying of Shaykh al-Islaam textually". However, al-Hajuri cited the statement which allegedly asserts this claim from Ibn Abi al-Izz, and he stated that Ibn Abi al-Izz himself cited it from Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, saying, "And this is quoted (by al-Tahawi) from Shaykh al-Islam." This means that al-Hajuri is claiming that the originator of this speech (that the Sahaabah fell into Irjaa') is Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and that Ibn Abi al-Izz and himself (al-Hajuri) are merely narrators of what came from Ibn Taymiyyah. Right at the end of his statement al-Hajuri says (هذا قول شيخ الإسلام تبعه على ذلك) "This is the saying of Shaykh al-Islaam, he (Ibn Abi al-Izz) followed him in that."
    4. When we return to the explanation of Ibn Abi al-Izz, indeed the passage in question is there. Here is the page from Ibn Abi al-Izz's explanation with tahqeeq of Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) (p. 324). However, this is a mistake from Ibn Abi al-Izz (rahimahullaah) because he cited the passage out of context, and it is a slip on his behalf. When we go back to the actual passage in Majmu' al-Fatawaa (11/403) that al-Hajuri himself alluded to (and this indicates that al-Hajuri knows the original speech and where it is) we come to realize that Shaykh al-Islaam is speaking about something else altogether. See next point. So Ibn Abi al-Izz made a slip, al-Hajuri followed him in that, and then when he was pulled up, he ascribed this to Ibn Taymiyyah, having figured that this passage originated with Ibn Taymiyyah. Here is where his crime really lies. And is important to note here one of the ways followed by the Hajurites which gives lie to their claim of "daleel" (evidence) and "absence of taqleed" is that the they are greatest of muqallidah in blind-following the errors of the Scholars in trying to justify their own mistakes.
    5. So lets go to the speech of Ibn Taymiyyah and look at its context it starts on page 401 of the 11th volume, so lets look at the first six pages to get an idea of what is going on: (page 401) (page 402) (page 403) (page 404) (page 405) (page 406).
    6. This is a fatwa in response to the question on p. 401, and the question is about: A people who keep fit and healthy through regular, persistent [spiritual and physical] exercise, as a result of which they have become strong and firm in their (minds and) bodies. So they say that it does not matter what we do now and that the commands and prohibitions are only for the common people, and if they also became like us, these commands and prohibitions would no longer apply to them. And they say that Prophethood is merely wisdom and benefits that are brought about, and the intent behind Prophethood is just to keep the common folk in order, but we are not from the common folk such that we should be confined with responsibilities, because we have matured (developed), and that we know the wisdom. The question is whether such a saying is disbelief and can the likes of this occur from one who submits to the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) (in obedience)?
    7. Ibn Taymiyyah makes the following points in response: a) There is no doubt this saying is from the greatest kufr (disbelief) in the view of the people of knowledge and faith, more evil than the saying of the Jews and Christians who believe in part of the Book and reject a part of the Book. b) The intent is that those who hold on to what is abrogated and to which alteration and distortion has entered are actually better than those who nullify and invalidate the concept of command and prohibition entirely, because those who make this claim exit from all of the revealed books (as opposed to those who cling to abrogated religion). Rather, such people are even worse than the pagans who used to hold onto the remnants of the religion of Ibraaheem (alayhis salaam). c) So anyone who says that he and any other faction have become such that they exempt from every command and prohibition in that nothing is obligatory upon them and nothing is unlawful for them, then they are the most disbelieving of the people of the earth, and they are from the same type as Fir'awn and his likes. This is because it is not possible for any person to live except with something of command and prohibition. d) However, many of these people do not make such an absolute negation, rather they claim that some of the obligations have been dropped for them or that some of the unlawful matters have become lawful for them. Some of them claim the five prayers are not obligatory upon him because he has reached the objective (behind prayer) and some of them claim exemption from the congregational prayers because they are not in need of them and some of them claim exemption from Hajj because there are people already making Tawaaf around the Ka'bah, and some of them claim they do not have to fast in Ramadan due to his not being in need of fasting. And some of them declare intoxicants to be lawful claiming that it is only prohibited for the common-folk who when they drink start arguing and fighting and the likes, as opposed to the elite, intelligent people.
    8. It is here that we come to the passage in question relied upon by al-Hajuri, relying upon the mistake of Ibn Abi al-Izz in that. Ibn Taymiyyah then makes the point: e) That this shubhah (doubt) - [and he is referring to the types of doubts mentioned in d) above] - "... had occurred to some of the very first ones, and the Companions were united that if they did not repent from that they should be killed. For Qudaamah bin Abdullaah [meaning Qudaamah bin Madh'oon] drank wine after it became unlawful, he and a faction with him, and they interpreted the verse, "Those who believe and do righteous good deeds, there is no sin on them for what they ate (in the past), if they fear Allah (by keeping away from His forbidden things), and believe and do righteous good deeds" (5:93) and when this was mentioned to Umar bin al-Khattaab, he and Ali bin Abi Taalib and all of the Companions agreed that if they acknowledged the prohibition, they are to be lashed, and if they persist in declaring it lawful, they are to be killed." Then after this Ibn Taymiyyah explains the reason why this Companion fell into this action by misunderstanding the verse. The verse was revealed because Allaah had prohibited intoxicants and this was after the battle of Uhud, and so some of the Companions said: How come some of our Companions died and they had been drinking alcohol? So then this verse was revealed (5:93) explaining that anyone who desired something in the period in which it had not been declared unlawful, then there is no harm upon that person if he is from the righteous, pious believers. So a faction of the Companions interpreted this verse to mean it was lawful for them to consume alcohol. f) Then Ibn Taymiyyah says that this is similar to when the qiblah was changed and they were ordered to turn to the Ka'bah after they had been turning to Bayt al-Maqdis, so Allaah, the Most High said, "Allaah would not cause your faith to be wasted" (2:143), meaning your prayer towards Bayt al-Maqdis. So Allaah explained that whoever worked obedience to Allaah, He will reward him for that, even if He prohibited (that action) after that time. So whoever made lawful what He had not (yet) prohibited, then there is no blame or harm upon him, if he was from the pious believers, even if Allaah had made it unlawful at another time. However, after the prohibition of intoxicants, then declaring it lawful is like praying in the desert after it had been prohibited, or worshipping on the Sabbath, or making zinaa (fornication, adultery) lawful. And anyone who held otherwise, he would be like a person who holds onto an abrogated legislation. g) For this reason, the Companions were agreed that the one who declared intoxicants (alcohol) lawful, he is to be killed. However, those (from the Companions) who fell into they, they were remorseful, and they know they had erred and they despaired of repentance. So then Umar wrote to Qudaamah saying to him, "Haa Meem. The revelation of this Book is from Allaah, the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing, the Forgiver of sin, the Receiver of repentance, the Severe in punishment." (40:1-3) I don't know which sin of yours is greater. Your making lawful what is unlawful firstly or your despair of the mercy of Allaah secondly?" h) After this Ibn Taymiyyah discusses what is agreed upon by the Companions and the Scholars that anyone who makes juhood (denies) an obligation of the well-known obligations (such as the prayer, fasting, Hajj) or any of the well known prohibitions (such as intoxicants, gambling, adultery) , or rejects some of the well-known permitted affairs (marriage, meat, bread), then he is a disbeliever apostate. i) After mentioning the case of some of those who make lawful some of the prohibited shameful deeds, Ibn Taymiyyah states that some amongst the people are ignorant of some of these rulings (commands and prohibitions), and such as one is not judged with disbelief until after the proof is established against himi, and the examples he gives are those who became Muslim and did not know prayer was obligatory upon him or that intoxicants were unlawful. End of the summary of Shaykh al-Islaam's answer to page 406.
    9. From all of the above it is clear that there is nothing whatsoever in the speech of Ibn Taymiyyah that suggests the Companions fell into Irjaa'. Rather, it is a completely different subject matter altogether. The subject matter is that of making ijtihaad and being in error and whether sin can be attributed to one erring in ijtihaad or not. It is the subject of ijtihaad made upon a faulty interpretation. Examples of these are given by Ibn Taymiyyah in Majmu' al-Fatawa (19/209) (view page) where he mentions the faulty interpretation of Qudaamah and those with him alongside a series of other such instances such as those eating after dawn during Ramadan, Usamah bin Zayd killing a man who declared his Islaam, the action of Khalid bin Waleed in fighting a tribe and taking their possessions, and Ammaar in the way he performed tayammum erroneously, and those who were in janaabah with no water, they did not perform tayammum and did not pray. So in all of these instances these are mistakes based upon faulty interpretation. As for the emergence of al-Irjaa' amongst the Companions, there is no connection to this whatsoever and there is nothing to suggest this in the passage from Ibn Taymiyyah. However, al-Hajuri held this saying based upon the mistake of Ibn Abi al-Izz (rahimahullaah). Now we can pardon and overlook the slip of Ibn Abi al-Izz, he has passed away and perhaps there was none to indicate to him this was a mistake on his behalf. Not so with al-Hajuri. Al-Hajuri convicts himself when he states that this was quoted from Ibn Taymiyyah and he provided the reference and he claimed that this is stated textually by Ibn Taymiyyah. So he was aware of the speech of Ibn Taymiyyah and all of this was stated in the context of al-Hajuri defending himself and he stated (as occurs above, "Some of the speech that is to come, yes, we spoke with it and we believe it, however, as has preceded, this is what it amounts to, and here is that for which this statement (of mine) has been criticized, it is the saying of Shaykh al-Islaam textually..."
    10. As you can see clearly this is a lie against Ibn Taymiyyah (after the lie against the Companions) and al-Hajuri cannot be excused because he was criticized for this statement and then he came back and defended himself and affirmed his attribution of Irjaa' to the Companions and attributing this statement to Ibn Taymiyyah, and he has been refuted since and to date, no clear repentance from slandering a Companion (radiyallaahu anhu), rather the Companions in general, by saying al-Irjaa' appeared amongst them first, and from lying upon Ibn Taymiyyah.
    11. Elsewhere in many places Ibn Taymiyyah states explicitly that none of these major innovations such as Irjaa were found amongst the Companions but that they came at a later time when most of the Companions had passed away. You can refer to Majmu' al-Fataawaa (27/389-390), (6/231) by way of example, and in (7/610), Ibn Taymiyyah states that the Companions never made Takfir of Qudamah bin Madh'oon because he made a faulty interpretation (and did not wilfully make alcohol lawful).
    12. It is therefore abundantly clear that al-Hajuri is in gross error, that he is not a muhaqqiq (verifier), that he used the slip of Ibn Abi al-Izz as a veil to slander Ibn Taymiyyah and worse to justify his slander of Qudaamah and the Companions (radiyallaahu anhum).
    13. Meanwhile, the Hajurite fanatics, ignorant of the realities are out there covering for al-Hajuri because, his honour, worth and standing appears to be loftier than that of the Companions and the great Scholars of Islaam whom al-Hajuri is slandering and attributing falsehoods to.
      [Hawaajirah Tweet Removed, due to exceeding the number of images this post allows, however Abu Iyaad mentioned them and refuted them]

      An important point you should be taking here is look at their totally deceptive and futile claim that they are people of "daleel" and "absence of taqleed" and they accuse the Salafis of being "muqallidah" and they are greatest of muqallidah (blind-followers), and worse still, they insist on blind-following the slips of the Scholars in order justify the slips of Yahya al-Hajuri, even to the point that where the honour of the Companions is involved, they will choose to defend the honour of Yahya al-Hajuri, Allaah ul-Musta'aan. And this is not an isolated incident. We can see it clearly here with the issue of Qudaamah bin Madh'oon and the Sahaabah (radiyallaahu anhum) and also on the issue of Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhu) and the adhaan, and also on the issue of the claim that the Companions deserted Uthmaan and that some of them participated in the murder of Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhu). So this indicates that the Hajurite Haddaadiyah are a vile sect and their ghuluww has no equal. In the above tweet, the Hajurite is trying to defend al-Hajuri by appeal to Ibn Abi al-Izz, and it proves that these people, despite claiming "daleel" are not people of daleel. They are people of the worst type of taqleed, which is taqleed of established errors of the Scholars in order to justify the error of the Mubtadi' (al-Hajuri) in whom they show such ghuluww.
      Note how these people attribute bid'ah to Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhu) (see article) and note how they attribute Irjaa' to Qudaamah and the Companions with him (amongst the other affairs they attribute to the Companions). Then they defend themselves upon baatil and upon what is clear taqleed of Scholars who fell into error and it has been made clear they fell into error. Then they resort to the argument of "ikhtilaaf" all of which indicates the great misguidance of these people.
    14. Finally, note the following written by Abu al-Abbaas al-Shihree in his defence of the Companions, "Nayl al-Fadeelah bil-Dhabb An il-Sahaabah Wa Dahd Firyat al-Khadeelah", a refutation of al-Hajuri's claim that the Companions deserted Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhu):

      Translation of the above:
      "And I spoke to him (Yahya al-Hajuri) also about his speech regarding the noble Companion al-Aqra' bin Haabis, "This man is greedy (avaricious)", and I heard from him that which is not desirable to be said for the likes of him in his status. May Allaah aid him in making repentance for that also. And he has some speech during the days of the tribulation of Abu al-Hasan which were stirred against him and this was his statement, "From those whom the doubt of Irjaa' appeared was Uthmaan bin Madh'oon (radiyallaahu anhu" depending upon some speech of the Imaam Ibn Abi al-izz which was a slip (mistake) [from Ibn Abi al-Izz] in citing from Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah. And after some private speech between me and him in his library, I wrote some pages within which (it was stated) that he (al-Hajuri) has left this saying. And he (al-Hajuri) signed it, and he wrote that this is the saying that he depends upon. I then read this in the mosque between Maghrib and Ishaa. And then a cassette appeared, "Tabyeen al-Kadhib wal-Meen", and today, one of the brothers played this speech of his (al-Hajuri), with his own voice during this fitnah within which there occurs that this is the speech of Ibn Abi al-Izz and Ibn Taymiyyah, just like he used to say previously! When the the associates of Abu al-Hasan used to show rejection against him, and he had recanted from that - as has preceded - and today he has returned to it afresh!! And when anyone shows rejection against him for this, he explains it saying, "They are just repeating the speech of the associates of Abu al-Hasan"!! And this approach in the topic of the Companions permits (the spread of) great evil, great danger and I ask Allaah, the Mighty to expand his chest and aid him in recanting from all of that and warning against it." End quote.
    15. What is left to be said after this? Allaah ul-Musta'aan, may Allaah guide these deluded people, their ghuluww has intoxicated their minds! Al-Hajuri said it (by his own admission), then he pretended to recant. Then he came out again defending his statement through speech of Ibn Abi al-Izz and Ibn Taymiyyah as he claims!.
    Refer to the following sources (used for this article):
    (الانتصار للصحابة الأخيار)
    al-Mukhtasar Fee Bayaan Ba'd Mukhaalafaat Yahya al-Hajuri

    Subhanak Allaahuma wa bihamdika ash-hadu anlaa illaaha illa anta astaghfiruka wa atubu ilayk

    If I said anything correct, then it is from Allaah (subhanahu wa taa'ala), and if I erred, then that is from me and shaytan.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts